Patna High Court
Dipak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that, given the seriousness of the alleged child sexual abuse and the victim’s statement, bail could not be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Dipak Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, alleging that he forcibly had sexual relations with the nine‑year‑old daughter of the informant. The prosecution’s case is based on the informant’s allegation and the victim’s statement recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., with no independent witnesses and a medical report that does not corroborate the charges. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing to contradictions in the statements and the lack of medical evidence, and offered to cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences and the victim’s recorded statement. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the gravity of the allegations and the victim’s statement warranted denial of bail, and consequently rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether contradictions in the victim’s statement and the absence of medical evidence justify the grant of bail.
- Whether the victim’s statement recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S. is sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 64
- B.N.S.S. — s. 183
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO
- child sexual abuse
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- victim statement
- medical evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86205 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2025 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Dipak Kumar S/O Akhilesh Mahto Resident of Village- Bariyariya, P.S-
Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. XYZ W/O Jitendra Mahto R/O Village- Jalaha, P.S- Sangrampur, Distt.- E.
Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case
no. 275 of 2025 registered under section 64 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act,
2012.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the petitioner forcibly established physical relations with
her nine year old minor daughter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There are
contradictions in her statement recorded under section 183 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86205 of 2025(4) dt.06-05-2026
2/2
B.N.S.S. as also the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer.
No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The
medical report does nor support the allegations against the petitioner.
The petitioner is in custody since 12.7.2025 and undertakes to
cooperate in the trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR wherein the
petitioner is said to have forcibly established physical relations
with the nine year old minor daughter of the informant together
with the allegations having been supported in the statement of
the victim recorded under section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the Court
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is
rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.